1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

Replace "being" with "noun" and enjoy flooding the universe with random maximally great anythings.

Also you can insert numbers.

1. It is possible that ∞ maximally great beings exist.
2. If it is possible that ∞ maximally great beings exist, then ∞ maximally great beings exist in some possible world.
3. If ∞ maximally great beings exist in some possible world, then they exist in every possible world.
4. If ∞ maximally great beings exist in every possible world, then they exist in the actual world.
5. If ∞ maximally great beings exist in the actual world, then ∞ maximally great beings exist.
6. Therefore, ∞ maximally great beings exist.

And therefore you can flood the universe, with maximally great beings, using Georg Cantor's set theory with several sets of infinite numbers of infinite numbers.

Which of course leads to a contradiction cause the universe is finite, and cast infinite amounts of maximally great things into a finite space would destroy that finite space.

hahahahahaha

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-

1. It is possible that a maximally great unicorn exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great unicorn exists, then a maximally great unicorn exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great unicorn exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great unicorn exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. If a maximally great unicorn exists in the actual world, then a maximally great unicorn exists.
6. Therefore, a maximally great unicorn exists.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-

Doesn't work with infinity, because "maximally great" means "the one and only greatest, everything else is lesser." (The existence of a maximally great object in any set, even at just the conceptual level, with a given comparator is an unwarranted assumption. As is the unstated choice of comparator. Oh, you wacky WLC.)

Otherwise, have fun.

I am an antipistevist. That's like an antipastovist, only with epistemic responsibility instead of bruschetta.

(16-12-2012 10:14 AM)Reltzik Wrote: Doesn't work with infinity, because "maximally great" means "the one and only greatest, everything else is lesser." (The existence of a maximally great object in any set, even at just the conceptual level, with a given comparator is an unwarranted assumption. As is the unstated choice of comparator. Oh, you wacky WLC.)

Otherwise, have fun.

What if you cloned god with all it's attributes?

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-

(16-12-2012 10:14 AM)Reltzik Wrote: Doesn't work with infinity, because "maximally great" means "the one and only greatest, everything else is lesser." (The existence of a maximally great object in any set, even at just the conceptual level, with a given comparator is an unwarranted assumption. As is the unstated choice of comparator. Oh, you wacky WLC.)

Otherwise, have fun.

What if you cloned god with all it's attributes?

Especially the attribute of non-existence.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

You can't have an infinite number of maximum anythings -- you can't even have just two beings that are the "greatest". A superlative can only exist in singularity.

Of course, I agree that WLC's argument is laughable. Premise #1 seems easy enough to defend, even though I can think of some examples of properties that can't be "maximal" (for instance, is it possible for something to be maximally slow-moving? Isn't there always a slower speed than whatever you could imagine?). Premise #2 is indefensible, though. How would one prove that something must exist simply because it can exist?

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.